What's the value of human life? - Page 11 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What's the objective value of human life?

1. Human life is special and sacred
7
19%
2. Human life is just expendable meat like any other life
4
11%
3. Human life is meat but we must act as if it is sacred for society to work
12
33%
4. Other
13
36%
#14924828
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you look at the context of my previous post and the next one, it is clear we are discussing god’s immorality.

The fact that your other question is similar does not change the fact tht theynare two separate questions.


That topic has been part of the conversation until the last few posts (basically the entire debate), so God's character has always been part of the context of this conversation, but my question was about YOUR ability to justify a moral critique (in that case against God Himself).

the point is, my asking you to justify your moral condemnations preceded you specific request for me to prove the existence of an objective morality.

Thus, my question came first and you should answer first.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is not a naturalistic fallacy if there is evidence. It is only a naturalistic fallacy if we assume we ought to do what is. Since this assumption is not being made, it is not a naturalistic fallacy.


Then you are not talking about morality if you are not talking about obligation.

The naturalistic fallacy is inferring from that which is observed, an obligation. its not merely about "assumption" but about inference. Any morality that is claimed to be obligatory on the basis of empirical evidence MUST commit this fallacy by definition for empirical evidence can only EVER examine what IS. Thus a morality (ought) based on empirical evidence (Is) would meet that fallacy exactly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am instead saying that there is no empirical verification for an objective morality.

And I agree with Hume that science deals,with facts and morality deals with values and that they are two separate things. You seem to be saying that objective morality is a fact. If it were a fact, we could actually expect some manner of empirical verification.

There is evidence, however, of subjective moralities. Even a cursory glance at history or the modern world shows that there are many moral systems, and all of them differ according to culture, custom, history, religion, etc.


I have NEVER claimed that morality was an empirical reality, EVER.

I have affirmed morality as objective, universal, and absolute. That is not the same as being empirically verifiable.

Logic, for instance, is objective, universal, and absolute, but it is not empirically verifiable in-and-of-itself.

Thus, if morality is to be established as objective, it must be established on the basis of reason (logic).

Likewise, technically speaking, empirical knowledge reduces to individual sense-experience and so even if morality could be empirically verified, it would still be impossible to call that morality objective because of the subjective character of perception itself.
#14924887
Your point was that it's rational for us to pretend we're more than just meat sacks even if that's really all we are. Did you forget your point?

My point was that it's reasonable to pretend that we are more than just meat sacks, but not rational to do so. I make a strong distinction between being rational and being reasonable. For example, a sociopath is usually highly rational but completely unreasonable in his or her behaviour.

It's irrational if we have good reason to think those ends won't result in happiness, and we do have very good reason to think that.

But this is a matter of preference, not rationality. As I said, people who pursue money, status or power to the neglect of everything else usually claim that having money, status or power makes them happy, and maybe they are telling the truth. I simply have different preferences.

They're not. I don't doubt that it does give them some form of gratification, but they would be much better off as people if they dedicated their lives to a noble purpose and worked to develop a virtuous character.

They would doubtless disagree, and there is no rational way of proving them wrong.

So you claim, but subjective awareness is an objective fact of reality. Self-aware beings do exist and they do experience meaning/significance/value. Claiming those experiences aren't "real" because they can't be physically measured, or because inanimate stuff like water molecules and pocket lint don't share them, is just dumb. Those mental states are just as much a part of reality as the ground we stand on, they're as real as anything. They're not fictions or "make-believe", they're what make life worth living. If all you've ever experienced is make-believe friendship, make-believe beauty, and make-believe truth, then you're one sad, sorry son of a bitch.

A dream is also an objective fact of reality, but that doesn't make it true. I can have a dream featuring unicorns and dragons. Does this mean that unicorns and dragons are real?

It's not mind independent but it is an objective fact of reality that it exists. Somehow you got it in your mind that only the physical is "real", that's extreme philosophical naivete to say the least.

It exists as an experience, in the same way that a dream exists as an experience. So what?

So human beings are just meat with a make-believe essence but 'just meat' can be alienated from its make-believe humanity if it doesn't pretend it's more than just meat. Yeah, that's real coherent. :knife:

The 'make-believe' part of us is, in my opinion, the most important part of us. That doesn't mean that, from a rational, objective viewpoint, it's real. But it's what makes us human.

We actually do have a pretty good idea of what is objectively best for us as human beings. The social sciences, philosophy, religion have all been studying well-being and human flourishing for ages and we now know quite a bit about what is and isn't beneficial to our psychological and social health.

Do we? Ask VS what he thinks is best for us as human beings, and then ask PoD the same question. Will they both give the same answer?

There is no value of any kind without consciousness, objective or otherwise. There are definite facts about what is best for us as human beings and if we're rational we value what's best for us.

You sound like an ancient Greek sophist banging on about "the good life". :lol:

Except that's not even close to what you said. Walking back your ridiculous nonsense is fine but don't pretend you weren't talking a whole pile of incoherent shit and I'm the one that's confused.

We are all blind men stumbling around in a dark cave. There is not one of us who is not confused.
#14924942
Sivad wrote:No it isn't, not if we ground morality in rationality. Morality isn't subjective in the sense that it's something we invent, it is mind dependent but it's not a matter of opinion. Morality is something we discover through rational inquiry and empirical investigation.


Then please provide evidence for an objective morality.

—————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:That topic has been part of the conversation until the last few posts (basically the entire debate), so God's character has always been part of the context of this conversation, but my question was about YOUR ability to justify a moral critique (in that case against God Himself).

the point is, my asking you to justify your moral condemnations preceded you specific request for me to prove the existence of an objective morality.

Thus, my question came first and you should answer first.


You already answered the question. You have no evidence.

Now, as to your question, people can make moral condemnations despite not having a belief in objective morality to support them.

As I said earlier, we can point to things like harm. If we decide that we are going to choose some subjective morality that says that harm is bad, and we agree on following this as a community, we can then have a basis for moral condemnations that is empirical (in that we can see harm being caused) and social (in that we agree as a community).

And again, self-interest is a rational basis for morality. If I champion the moral idea that kids should not be sold in my community, I improve the chances of not having my kids sold, which is a goal that I subjectively value.

If you are asking me for an objective, absolute, and universal justification for morality, then I would say that I do not think there is one. Nor do I think we need one.

Then you are not talking about morality if you are not talking about obligation.

The naturalistic fallacy is inferring from that which is observed, an obligation. its not merely about "assumption" but about inference. Any morality that is claimed to be obligatory on the basis of empirical evidence MUST commit this fallacy by definition for empirical evidence can only EVER examine what IS. Thus a morality (ought) based on empirical evidence (Is) would meet that fallacy exactly.


No, it would not.

You are incorrectly assuming that the evidence itself imposes an obligation. There is no reason to think this.

I have NEVER claimed that morality was an empirical reality, EVER.

I have affirmed morality as objective, universal, and absolute. That is not the same as being empirically verifiable.

Logic, for instance, is objective, universal, and absolute, but it is not empirically verifiable in-and-of-itself.

Thus, if morality is to be established as objective, it must be established on the basis of reason (logic).

Likewise, technically speaking, empirical knowledge reduces to individual sense-experience and so even if morality could be empirically verified, it would still be impossible to call that morality objective because of the subjective character of perception itself.


I do not think that logic is objective, universal, and absolute.

Anyway, can we agree that there is no evidence for an objective morality?

And can we agree that there is evidence for subjective morality?
#14925377
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Then please provide evidence for an objective morality.


Any system of normative ethics that is grounded in rationality and derived from facts, reason, and evidence, is an objective morality. Most moral codes are, to one extent or another, grounded in facts about what is right and wrong for us as rational beings.

As I said earlier, we can point to things like harm. If we decide that we are going to choose some subjective morality that says that harm is bad, and we agree on following this as a community, we can then have a basis for moral condemnations that is empirical (in that we can see harm being caused) and social (in that we agree as a community).


You're confusing objective morality with moral realism. A good analogy for this distinction is found in mathematics in that even if numbers don't exist "out there" in some platonic sense, 2+2=4 is still an objective fact.

And again, self-interest is a rational basis for morality. If I champion the moral idea that kids should not be sold in my community, I improve the chances of not having my kids sold, which is a goal that I subjectively value.


That's not just a subjective value, it's also a rational value. And it's rational for many reasons, not just because your well-being depends on your children's well-being.

If you are asking me for an objective, absolute, and universal justification for morality, then I would say that I do not think there is one.


Rationality is the objective, absolute, and universal justification for morality.


Potemkin wrote:My point was that it's reasonable to pretend that we are more than just meat sacks, but not rational to do so. I make a strong distinction between being rational and being reasonable.


"Reasonable" is socially defined, it's just whatever society is willing to accommodate. Reasonable doesn't tell us anything about what is right or good for us, we need rationality for that.

For example, a sociopath is usually highly rational but completely unreasonable in his or her behaviour.


How is a sociopath rational? Sociopaths are miserable, self-destructive, dysfunctional people who do not lead lives worth living. You're confusing instrumental rationality with deep rationality.

But this is a matter of preference, not rationality. As I said, people who pursue money, status or power to the neglect of everything else usually claim that having money, status or power makes them happy, and maybe they are telling the truth.


It doesn't matter what they claim, it's been well studied and pathological greed and ruthlessness do not achieve the best outcomes in terms of overall well-being.

I simply have different preferences.


No, you simply lack that particular pathology, and you're better off for it. It's not a matter of subjective preference.

They would doubtless disagree, and there is no rational way of proving them wrong.


They've been proven wrong by thousands of years of observation, it's established fact. It's so well established that it's cliche.

A dream is also an objective fact of reality, but that doesn't make it true. I can have a dream featuring unicorns and dragons. Does this mean that unicorns and dragons are real?


By that logic all mental contents are fiction and there is no reality.

It exists as an experience, in the same way that a dream exists as an experience. So what?


The whole world exists as an experience in the mind but we can still tell the difference between real and make-believe.

Do we? Ask VS what he thinks is best for us as human beings, and then ask PoD the same question. Will they both give the same answer?


I don't care what answers they give, if they claim mass murderers and corporate psychopaths are healthy, happy, well balanced people then they're just wrong. A lot of people think the Earth is flat, does that cause you to doubt that it's not?

You sound like an ancient Greek sophist banging on about "the good life". :lol:


Yeah, this has been well established for thousands of years, that's why so many scientists and philosophers share this view.
#14925485
Sivad wrote:"Reasonable" is socially defined, it's just whatever society is willing to accommodate.

Agreed. Where have I denied this?

Reasonable doesn't tell us anything about what is right or good for us, we need rationality for that.

Rationality can tell us nothing about morality. As Hume pointed out, one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is', and rationality can be used to justify sociopathic behaviour more readily than it can be used to justify altruistic behaviour. Morality for most people is largely a matter of social convention. People do what they think they can get away with. And where it has an absolute categorical aspect, it is a matter of religious faith. In neither case does rationality have anything to do with it, neither through empiricism nor through abstract logical reasoning.

How is a sociopath rational?

Insofar as they wish to maximise their own benefit in any given social situation. How is it not rational to do this? If I can steal money from your wallet without you noticing that I have done so, then it is perfectly rational for me to do so.

Sociopaths are miserable, self-destructive, dysfunctional people who do not lead lives worth living.

I've met a few people who could be described as 'sociopaths' in my time. Almost without exception, they tend to be cheerful, outgoing people who have a very high opinion of themselves. It's people with a conscience who tend to be miserable, self-destructive and dysfunctional.

You're confusing instrumental rationality with deep rationality.

'Deep' rationality? What is that? :eh:

It doesn't matter what they claim, it's been well studied and pathological greed and ruthlessness do not achieve the best outcomes in terms of overall well-being.

Meh, the soulless corporate sociopaths of this world seem to be doing rather well for themselves, and have always done so. They are, after all, the Masters of the Universe. This is their world and we just live in it.

No, you simply lack that particular pathology, and you're better off for it. It's not a matter of subjective preference.

Define 'better off'. Lol.

They've been proven wrong by thousands of years of observation, it's established fact. It's so well established that it's cliche.

You seem to be awfully sure of yourself. Maybe you should call a press conference and inform all the philosophy professors that you solved all of these issues long ago and you don't know why they're still debating it? They could then stop wasting their time. Hey, you owe it to the world. ;)

By that logic all mental contents are fiction and there is no reality.

Which is precisely my point. :)

The whole world exists as an experience in the mind but we can still tell the difference between real and make-believe.

Can we? VS, along with about a billion other people, believes that a Jewish rabbi who lived two thousand years ago could walk on water, could turn water into wine, and rose from the dead three days after being crucified. Oh, and he was the literal son of God. Reality or make-believe? You decide.... ;)

I don't care what answers they give, if they claim mass murderers and corporate psychopaths are healthy, happy, well balanced people then they're just wrong. A lot of people think the Earth is flat, does that cause you to doubt that it's not?

Mass murderers and corporate psychopaths do indeed claim to be healthy, happy and well-balanced people. Are they all lying? How do you know they're lying? :eh:

Yeah, this has been well established for thousands of years, that's why so many scientists and philosophers share this view.

Argument from authority. :)
#14925635
VS wrote:Secular states are responsible for more violent deaths via war than the Christian states

A specious argument given that secular states are a recent development and recently humanity has got a lot more efficient at killing on an industrial scale. Not forgetting that due to recent advances in medicine and agrochemistry there are a lot more humans to kill.

For an educated (?) man you do talk shite.


:lol:
#14925636
Pants-of-dog wrote:You already answered the question. You have no evidence


The question demanded a fallacy, so of course not.

That would be like me asking you to smell the color nine and write a report on it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, as to your question, people can make moral condemnations despite not having a belief in objective morality to support them.


False. If they do so, they are involved in irrational behavior (as the behavior lacks justification).

Pants-of-dog wrote:As I said earlier, we can point to things like harm. If we decide that we are going to choose some subjective morality that says that harm is bad, and we agree on following this as a community, we can then have a basis for moral condemnations that is empirical (in that we can see harm being caused) and social (in that we agree as a community).


But if such is subjective or arbitrarily chosen, then the authority likewise remains arbitrarily chosen and subjective and thus is, by definition, non-applicable to others.

Unless you demonstrate why EVERYONE should believe harm is bad, you have no moral authority (rationally speaking) to condemn harming others.

The subjective element remains the limiting factor in this case, if your belief that harm is bad is merely subjective (your personal preference), it does not matter what external factors you use to support your own preference, for such factors cannot raise that preference beyond being merely preference.

Thus;

I ask you to try again:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:My presupposing of an objective morality rationally justifies my moral condemnations.

You have no such justification without fallacy.

thus the following is true and you have refused to (because you cannot) show otherwise,

you cannot say that raping children is wrong, only that you personally do not prefer it.


Pants-of-dog wrote:You are incorrectly assuming that the evidence itself imposes an obligation. There is no reason to think this.


No, I am saying that if you purport to claim that an objective morality can in anyway be grounded, based-upon, or supported by an evidential claim in any manner except as a mere correlation to the action you already affirm (for other reasons) to be obligatory, then the fallacy would obtain.

You cannot say (without error) that because of (observed datum X) that we must (therefore, obligated act Y).

If this not what you are asking for when you request an empirical evidence for an objective morality, then what the fuck are you talking about? :eh:

Pants-of-dog wrote:I do not think that logic is objective, universal, and absolute.


:eek:

So then when you said this above, you actually may have meant:

"Attilla the Hun Loves Chocolate Cake?"

or

"I hate black people?"

because if logic is not objective, universal, or absolute, then there are no fixed identities, including the meaning of words in a conversation.

Hence, you lose all debates by default as, without logic being universal and objective, no meaning can be ascribed to anything at any given time and all words and points you make can all be dismissed as meaningless given your own worldview.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Anyway, can we agree that there is no evidence for an objective morality?


An objective morality can be demonstrated by logic.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And can we agree that there is evidence for subjective morality?


Subjective morality is not morality at all, as it has no rational justification for obligating anyone to do anything, which is the point of morality.
#14925639
ingliz wrote:A specious argument given that secular states are a recent development and recently humanity has got a lot more efficient at killing on an industrial scale. Not forgetting that due to recent advances in medicine and agrochemistry there are a lot more humans to kill.


But if secularists are more rational, then given their knowledge of their potential abilities, would have showed more restraint. You can argued this anyway you want (which was my point).

I ascribed no causal explanation and was rebutting the claim that Christian morality was "Evil " because of "historical data,"

Under that same argument, the facts show that secular states killed at an exponentially higher rate in a far shorter time that Christian ones (which is absolutely true). This is even true for the time period (Christian states v. the Mongols, etc.)

Once again, I would critique neither Christian morality nor secular morality on the basis of the historical record as no causal inferences could be drawn anyway (without fallacy) and for reasons you have outlined (which works both ways, for lacking the technological ability does not imply that Christians are inherently more violent either).

My only point was to say that if one wanted to use historical data alone to defend secular morality, in reality, it would not fare well for them.

This is because the information i gave was FACTUALLY correctm irrespective of all possible factors, the relevance of which, are only ever speculative.
#14925643
VS wrote:But if secularists are more rational, then given their knowledge of their potential abilities, would have showed more restraint.

Who is arguing rationality? Christian or secularist, humans are irrational creatures as you well know - Naked apes.
#14925751
Potemkin wrote:Rationality can tell us nothing about morality.


:lol: All the moral progress we've made in the last 500 years, from democracy and civil rights to racial and gender equality to reproductive rights to LGBTQ rights, has all been due to evaluative rationality. We applied some critical thinking to the old ethical paradigms, found they didn't hold up to rational scrutiny, and replaced them with a more rationally enlightened ethics.

As Hume pointed out, one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is',


is/ought isn't an issue for a rationally grounded morality.

and rationality can be used to justify sociopathic behaviour more readily than it can be used to justify altruistic behaviour.


No it can't, not given what we know about human psychology.


And where it has an absolute categorical aspect, it is a matter of religious faith.


It isn't categorical or hypothetical, it's a rational imperative. Even if there were magical oughts, they'd be completely irrelevant to human behavior. People do what they think is in their interest to do. The perceived consequences are what determine people's actions, not categorical imperatives.

In neither case does rationality have anything to do with it, neither through empiricism nor through abstract logical reasoning.


Whatever.

Insofar as they wish to maximise their own benefit in any given social situation. How is it not rational to do this? If I can steal money from your wallet without you noticing that I have done so, then it is perfectly rational for me to do so.


It's irrational because it's destructive of your larger interests. It's petty self-interest vs enlightened self-interest. The reason rational people don't go around fucking people over is not only because it's bad for their own psychology and that it adversely impacts their social environment, but also because they know their well-being depends on meaningful relationships and those are only possible if we genuinely regard others as ends in themselves and treat them accordingly.

I've met a few people who could be described as 'sociopaths' in my time. Almost without exception, they tend to be cheerful, outgoing people who have a very high opinion of themselves.


Are you really claiming borderline personalities and psychopaths are the most fulfilled, untroubled people in the world? Go read up on antisocial personality disorder, it's an awful affliction that comes with tremendous suffering.

'Deep' rationality? What is that? :eh:


:knife: It's a term from philosophy for the combination of enlightened self-interest and instrumental, epistemic, and evaluative rationality. It's also known as wisdom.


Define 'better off'. Lol.


You do know that human well-being is studied in the social and cognitive sciences, right? I'm not just making this up. When you lol at the idea of well-being and flourishing you're only demonstrating your own ignorance.

You seem to be awfully sure of yourself. Maybe you should call a press conference and inform all the philosophy professors that you solved all of these issues long ago and you don't know why they're still debating it? They could then stop wasting their time. Hey, you owe it to the world. ;)


If you knew anything about ethics, rationality, or psychology you'd know nothing I'm saying here is new or revolutionary. The Greeks were developing philosophies and sciences of flourishing thousands of years ago. And most modern philosophers of ethics are moral realists who hold that moral facts are discovered through rational/empirical inquiry. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Can we? VS, along with about a billion other people, believes that a Jewish rabbi who lived two thousand years ago could walk on water, could turn water into wine, and rose from the dead three days after being crucified. Oh, and he was the literal son of God. Reality or make-believe? You decide.... ;)


None of us are completely rational but that doesn't prove anything, and non-rational beliefs aren't the same as irrational beliefs anyway.

Mass murderers and corporate psychopaths do indeed claim to be healthy, happy and well-balanced people. Are they all lying? How do you know they're lying? :eh:


According to the science, yes, they're all lying.

Argument from authority. :)


:knife:
#14925771
We'll never see eye-to-eye on this, Sivad. I would just like to point out that modern 'political correctness' and 'civil rights' have little to do with increased rationality and more to do with what Keynes called the 'animal spirits' of society. It just happens to be the Zeitgeist of our era, that's all. Or do you think that our present generation, by a remarkable coincidence, just happens to be the most enlightened and rational of all generations in history? But hasn't every generation thought that about itself? Lol.
#14925932
Potemkin wrote:We'll never see eye-to-eye on this, Sivad.


Well it's not a legitimate disagreement, you just don't have an informed opinion. If you knew anything about this stuff I could take you somewhat seriously, but as it is you're not even an amateur, you're just talking out your ass.

I would just like to point out that modern 'political correctness' and 'civil rights' have little to do with increased rationality and more to do with what Keynes called the 'animal spirits' of society. It just happens to be the Zeitgeist of our era, that's all.


And I would just like to point out that that's the dumbest statement in this entire thread. Those are all Enlightenment values and we know exactly how we arrived those values, they were all derived through a process of rational inquiry based in skeptical reason and empirical evidence. It wasn't some random trend driven by animal spirits, that's just ahistorical, pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

Or do you think that our present generation, by a remarkable coincidence, just happens to be the most enlightened and rational of all generations in history? But hasn't every generation thought that about itself?


While human nature hasn't changed all that much, there has definitely been a good deal of moral progress. The circle of moral concern has been greatly expanded in accordance with sound reasoning and our ethical principles are founded more on a rational skepticism rather than faith, superstition, and blind obedience to power and authority. The morality of our age is far from perfect but it is, in general, a good deal more evolved than what it was even 50 years ago. The progress isn't completely linear, we have regressed in some areas, but overall we are making progress.

Potemkin wrote: Lol.


Every time you Lol at some idea you know nothing about you make an ass of yourself.
#14925934
@Sivad
I was curious how @Potemkin would reply. As usual, I was impressed. He can’t say it outright, but I can. He is addressing it from a different level of reasoning than you are. Your two videos are if not shallow, at least common. Nothing even remotely intriguing and the first arguably uninformed. You only see him not understanding because you don’t understand fully what he said.
Humans have not improved morally through reasoning. You just decided they have based upon current Zeitgeist.
There is no way to argue from two such different views. You either understand the other view or you don’t. So “agreeing to disagree” was the polite thing to say.
#14925944
One Degree wrote: Your two videos are if not shallow, at least common. Nothing even remotely intriguing and the first arguably uninformed.


Yeah, Peter Singer is really uniformed about meta-ethics :knife:

Humans have not improved morally through reasoning. You just decided they have based upon current Zeitgeist.


I never said people have improved, just that moral reasoning has.

There is no way to argue from two such different views. You either understand the other view or you don’t. So “agreeing to disagree” was the polite thing to say.


The only thing to understand is that Potemkin doesn't know what he's talking about.
#14925948
Yeah, Peter Singer is really uniformed about meta-ethics :knife:


He states people go from 10 million to a billion still searching for happiness. Studies have shown this is not true. After the 10 million, it becomes about power. The goals change after a certain level of wealth.


I never said people have improved, just that moral reasoning has.


There is no evidence of this. We have evidence ancients understood just as well as we do.

Edit: @Sivad As means of explanation. People have always asked the same questions. The answers they come up with do not display their understanding. The questions do. The answers will vary by generation, but are no more valid.

Edit 2: I do apologize to @Sivad and @Potemkin for my audacity of intruding. Sometimes the pomposity of my own view overwhelms me. :)
#14925981
Rancid wrote:I voted 3



So in your mind your children's lives are really just completely worthless and your only pretending they have value? What about those kids in ICE detention, you're only pretending to give a shit about their troubles too?
#14925993
Sivad wrote:

So in your mind your children's lives are really just completely worthless and your only pretending they have value? What about those kids in ICE detention, you're only pretending to give a shit about their troubles too?


huh?

My vote for 3 is the following:
Ultimately, our existences are largely pathetic and uninteresting. Moreover, the universe itself doesn't really care about us either. We're largely an insignificant blip in the grand scheme of the universe.

That said, we can make our pathetic existence personally interesting, and personally valuable, but ultimately, it's a charade to keep ourselves preoccupied. If we didn't keep this charade going (i.e. pretending there is value to our existence), then we'd all be super depressed and commit suicide. We need to create this value (which in my opinion is totally manufactured) to keep society together.

It doesn't mean we should not help each other out, or care for each other. We might as well go on with it, because the alternative is depressing anyway.

I'll frame it this way for you. If you don't care about those children getting separated from their family, then you should commit suicide. If you aren't for the charade, then you're for depression, meaninglessness, and death. Which... I guess isn't inherently evil, but it's a problem for those who want to keep the charade and society together.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 18

He is still under checks and balances while other[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainly[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The claim is a conditional statement. This is one[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]